I mean yeah, but the real criminals are those in power who have the authority to send crack into black communities and disproportionately send black folks to jail. The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
It’s a classic capitalist trick. Cause strife and conflict among the working class so we don’t rise up against them.
It’s the same thing with climate change — blame the average middle class guy slaving away 12 hours a day who needs to commute two hours to work rather than the corporations burning up the amazon and polluting the oceans.
The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
I’m a white guy but I try really hard to stay open-minded, partly because I’ve held beliefs in the past that I was sure were right but now am sure are wrong.
I once heard an amazing explanation for this exact sentiment, from Stephen A Smith of all people.
He said that most black folks don’t blame the average white person for anything. Black people would just like to feel solidarity from the average white person. Like “yeah, I agree things are messed up. I’m on your side.” Instead, what they often get are diet racists spewing statistics about black crime rates and how hard it is to be a police officer.
The problem is people like jontron, pewdiepie, and h3h3 are exactly these people but are seen as moderates. If nobody can be an extremist, then racists can only be seen as moderates, this normalizing these views and absolving people of responsibility
Basically they are racists that get to act like they aren't racist because they have a million bad faith arguments to obfuscate their racism for so long that anyone watching would get bored. They are racists comfortable in the knowledge that they'll never get called out for being toxic shit. Just like diet coke.
Yeah exactly. It’s not about white people today apologizing, it’s about acknowledging that minorities experience/are affected by systems and institutions in a different way.
just because white people today aren’t responsible for slavery doesn’t mean we didn’t benefit from it through inherited wealth.
There's some great content out there about how neighborhoods and the housing market developed in the 50's. Essentially, black neighborhoods were segregated, and confined black families to one area. Then, schools were funded based on property taxes. Because of Jim Crow laws and segregation, black communities had less taxable income, meaning that the schools did worse.
Eventually, we obviously did away with segregation policies-- but black people were still in those same communities that were under-schooled, and that depended on property taxes to improve the schools. Black students had performed worse due to being in a disadvantage, so they couldn't afford to move away from where they'd grown up. Long story short, economics trapped people where they were and prevented upward mobility. (Obviously this is not true at a 100% rate, so please spare me every single personal anecdote about someone who escaped poverty through hard work and perseverance, or the successful black entrepreneur who now looks down on those who haven't managed to escape the life they grew up in) All of the people responsible for those policies are long since dead and buried. They aren't touching the legislation. The people involved now hold no personal responsibility for what happened.
But the situation is still wrong and needs correction, which has to mean taking from those who have to help those who were never given the same opportunities. It's not a Harrison Burgeron situation to suggest that under-served communities need more resources allocated to them in order to bring them up to the same level as affluent communities.
Yeah completely right. The long history of redlining has a huge part to play in inequality today too.
Actually, depressingly, if you look at the neighborhoods and areas with the highest concentration of subprime mortgages in the financial crash, they are all the same neighborhoods that were redlined in the 1900s. And there's been plenty of research showing that minorities were the most common targets for predatory lenders, given subprime loans even when they qualified for fixed rate mortgages
Man my Mom would get defensive when I point out how privileged I am. Like yeah, I've worked hard and had many issues I've had to work through, and think I'm a relatively smart and capable person, but I've still had untold advantages (financial, racial, cultural, etc)
I'm not ashamed or apologetic of my privilege but I make sure I'm always aware of it to stay understanding. Like I can never look down on a McDonalds worker cause those fuckers work so hard, or try to recognize long histories of abuse that puts some communities in the situations they're in
Some might call this virtuesignaling, but whatever. I used to live in a headspace of arrogance and self righteousness and never want to sink back to that
What I have no problem acknowledging is that there are vast swaths of people who experience/are affected by systems and institutions in a different way.
I grew up moving around. I was a minority in several places, and I am a minority where I live now. I have also been part of the majority. But here's the part that I think people tend to dismiss: this isn't a problem of systemic racism, it's a problem of systemic classism. Class mobility is extraordinarily difficult in the US, especially if you happen to have a criminal record or grew up in a rough neighborhood.
If you grew up in the projects and went to an inner city school, you're likely to see a tough life. You'll have a hard time finding decent education, jobs, or any sort of outside assistance.
Race really has little to do with it. Yes, people with more melanin in their skin happen to have grown up in those neighborhoods (a problem that could be easily traced back to slavery, no doubt), but the melanin content isn't the problem; it's the neighborhood. You see the same thing in various trailer parks around the US, which are equally socially immobile (albeit physically mobile, because, you know, they're trailers), but are predominantly populated by those with lighter colored skin.
My point is that generational/institutional poverty is a problem with our leadership and our wealthy citizens. It has little to do with skin color and hasn't for quite a few years. Seeking to further classify or organize people according to what color their skin is or what shape their eyes are is only going to serve to divide our population and give those in power a way to distract the masses.
The issue is that there's still a column for race/ethnicity on job applications/scholarship applications/etc. The issue is that we classify people and audit for compliance that companies have hired enough people who happen to tan darker than others or have an extra fold in their eyelids. The issue is that we treat race as an issue at all instead of focusing on the underlying problem: if you're born poor in America, you'll probably die poor due to lack of education, proper healthcare, financial assistance, etc.
I actually agree that class is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in American society. and it's a big problem that the US doesn't talk about class at all.
However institutionalized racism does play a big part. The fact that, for example, black people are overall much poorer and proportionately much higher-represented than white people in the lowest economic class in America is absolutely a legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism like Jim Crow or redlining.
But you are absolutely right that today the biggest obstacle facing a poor black person is the same obstacle facing a poor white person or a poor person of any race- their class and the fact that the current economic system benefits the already wealthy.
So I think institutionalized racism is a factor in explaining the current state, and things like police brutality against minorities are a huge issue, but I agree that class dominates all, and it's the main issue.
Not being targeted by a disadvantage is the same as having an advantage.
If you're in a race with 9 other contestants, and someone breaks the legs of 5 of the other competitors, you didn't directly benefit from their actions-- but you most certainly had an advantage over them in the race by not having your legs broken.
There are explicit forms of widespread bias, and more subtle benefits one may never actually realize. I'd hard wager that most white people experience more preferential treatment and representation than they realize.
Again, not something to be ashamed of, but just acknowledge and try to understand, cause it's a vast spiderweb of cause and effect
Be an ally or be part of the problem. I don't know why so many of my caucastic brothers and sisters struggle with the concept. As a certified gringo, I have a lot of problems, and exactly zero of these problems are caused by, or pertain to, my race and status.
That's a terrible way to put it. Don't say you're either good or bad because that's the shit that drives people away.
You're either aware of the realities of our society or you're not. That's it. It's easier to have a two way conversation when you don't immediately insult the other person by implying their a bad person.
Nothing in life is ever black and white. Most people are just not properly educated or never had access to the info in the first place. Taking a look for yourself at Federal Crime stats is an eye opener and most people never actually do.
You really can't go around saying that someone is either with you or they're the bad guy. It's just not how to get shit done.
There are two people trying to convince a third person of what color the sky is, and why.
The first convincer says:
"The sky is green because green light is scattered more than the other colors in the visible spectrum."
The second convincer says:
"The sky is blue because of magic paint."
The convincee, not knowing anything about magic paint or light diffusion, looks up, and concludes that magic paint must be real.
That is what denying crime statistics looks like. Open-minded third parties walk into the conversation knowing nothing, see one side arguing with at least one fact with sources, and the other side arguing against them.
Now, you and I know that those stats can be misleading.
There is context to them; there is institutionalized issues that lead to innocent black people going to prison, guilty white people getting off the hook, but also to more black people committing those crimes per capita in the first place.
The reason those crimes are committed more often by black people is likely not genetic. It is the result of poverty, broken families, and an extralegal culture that began when the law was simply not there for them. More succinctly: nothing in life is ever black or white, which is the important takeaway you should have gotten from the previous comment.
But that entire nuance is lost on the convincee if you begin your argument by rejecting facts.
I'm not denying them, but introducing them into a conversation about the merits of solidarity is patent horseshit. Like if we're trying to discuss the US Presidential race and I mention, apropos of nothing, the huge number of dicks your mother has sucked.
Can't argue with facts, but it's not really salient to the topic at hand, is it?
If they just posted "crime stats!1!1!!" that'd be one thing, but they mentioned them in a paragraph about things not being black and white. It was clearly meant as an example to illustrate their point, and therefore pertinent.
Reductio ad absurdem. It's fairly obvious that being an ally against injustice and standing in solidarity with the oppressed does not encompass those who advocate wholesale murder.
The suggestion is either disingenuous, or produced by a mind diseased by bigotry, incapable of seeing social struggle as anything other than bloodsport.
It's not reductio ad absurdum. It's an example of an actual conversation I had here with another user. The person who made those claims also implied that he would consider anyone who voted for Trump to be racist, because they endorse a racist leader. So effectively they were arguing for eliminating about half of the population of US.
And that person believes they are fighting for a good cause. If they judged people the same way you do, they would probably not consider you their "ally" once you started questioning their convictions.
Reducing complex problems in society to binary YES OR NO only leads to divide and tribalism. You dismiss everything you might have in common with someone because of the one thing that you disagree on.
People on the fence who see injustices and do nothing were never on your side. They were just too cowardly to get off the fence and say they were on the other side.
People on the fence who see injustices and do nothing were never on your side.
Who said anything about seeing injustices and not doing anything about it?
This is a classic moving of the goalposts. The original discussion was about whether we should blame white people for everything, now you're claiming that anyone who doesn't consider themselves "an ally" will see injustices and do nothing. Based on what?
This is the mentality that got Trump elected. The way that I contribute to a more fair and just society is not partaking in the same tribalism and us vs them that's tearing the country apart.
First, the mentality that got Trump elected is squarely on the shoulders of people who voted for him. So please stop spreading that lie about the mentality. It’s bullshit.
Second, throwing out a fallacy isn’t an argument. It shows a lack of one of anything. No one is moving goalposts, and you know that.
Your entire attitude is a perfect example of the problem. You seem to assume that everyone who voted for Trump is an evil person who is racist and just wanted to hurt minorities and destroy the country. This is the epitome of the tribalistic regressive mentality.
If you aren't willing to recognize the humanity of people who voted for Trump and realize that most of them are not evil racists but who were encouraged to do so by a complex amalgamation of social and cultural factors, then you are closed minded.
You can not shirk responsibility for your own tribalism and destructive attitudes + behaviors by solely blaming others for the direction you've pushed them in.
Electing Trump was wrong yes, but why did it happen? If your only answer is "evil racists" then you are so blind that nobody can help you.
Lmao, I never said why they voted for Trump. Yet, you immediately assumed my views and launched a whole diatribe about my opinions. Not to mention your assumptions of my views are stereotypical and can only be considered part of the “tribalism” mentality you’re whining about. “He has different views so he must believe _____.”
You’re projecting hard, man. You’re full of shit and are more of the thing you’re railing against I ever will be on my worst day.
Nice try, but I didn't assume your views. I said IF your only explanation for why people voted for Trump is "evil racists" then you are closed minded.
If however, you recognize that there were and are a complex myriad of circumstances surrounding America's political climate (like the other candidate being awful) then you also recognize that your previously expressed views of blaming only Trump voters is ignorant to say the least. You called looking at the situation in a more realistic and nuanced way "a lie" and "bullshit", so I suppose you're ready to take that back now?
No, that's not what I meant at all. I mean the parent post that spawned this discussion we're currently having was questioning whether we should blame why people for everything. Press the "context" button.
I was then told that people who do not accept this premise are not "allies".
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
That quote is almost word for word the same as this, which comes from the Bible:
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16
That's God speaking to the Isrealites and it's commonly used as justification by modern Christians that lukewarm Christians are worse than atheists.
So thank you for proving my point that your tribalist mentality is essentially religious in nature.
I'm just gonna have to assume you don't have the slightest idea what the context of the letter it's taken from is, because it is pointedly, specifically and inarguably about the very topic being discussed.
I do in fact know the context in which it's being used. He's writing a letter from Birmingham jail to his fellow white clergymen who are encouraging him to stop the protests and urging that it isn't the correct time. This is essentially why he's using religious language to communicate his message, because he's talking to what are clearly religious and tribalistic people. The fact that you shared this quote, of all Dr. King quotes, says more about you than anything.
Dr. King was not the type to, in public, turn away those willing to help his cause regardless of their commitment or skin color. You must be thinking of Malcolm X.
Assuming you're in the States, all "causes" exist because ultimately, the underlying root cause (no pun intended) is inequity stemming from American capitalism, which bred the systemic racism we see now.
Also gringo is just the word used by mexicans to say American. There isnt any race or skin color attached to it. If you want to distinguish yourself as white you should use the term guero (technically güero, pronounced "weh-ro")
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I mean, if that's the motto. Then okay. The guy was absolutely correct.
I think because people naturally resist ultimatums. I'm with you in spirit though if presented to me like that I'd resist because I dont like people telling me what to do
"Either you agree with me and my position or you are <bad person>"
What if someones views are wrong or prejudiced in themselves? Or at the least can be improved upon. I think there are better ways to convince people to help the cause. And I think this mentality harms it.
If you disagree, its because maybe we are different and see it from different perspectives (and that's ok!)
Saying you are with me or against me might not be a good way to convince people to join your side but it doesn't make it untrue.
If someone could stop an immoral action, their inaction becomes immoral. Straight up telling them they are immoral probably won't sway them but it isn't wrong.
So if their inaction is immoral, then your only moral choice is to try to stop it and spur them to action. With that in mind, is it not morally imperative that you use the most persuasive argument possible to attempt to change their behaviour and get them to join your side, rather than just "straight up telling them"?
If them refusing to act makes them part of the problem, then surely you also become part of the problem if you choose to act in a way that you recognize as being ineffective?
So are you just entirely unaware of the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, and what it says?
Because you are arguing against that, not against any of us. It says the same thing in far more pointed terms. And so I'm just curious if you are able to bring your arguments to bare in those terms.
So are you just entirely unaware of the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, and what it says?
To be honest, I had not read that letter before, though I did recognize several passages and quotes from it. I'm not American, so that might be part of the reason why I'm not familiar with it.
I wasn't aware that I was arguing against anyone, to the point where part of me genuinely wonders if you replied to the wrong person by mistake.
That letter seems mostly aimed at responding to people who objected to non-violent protests. I'm certainly not one of those people. If anything, my impression is that the letter agrees with my point, since it goes beyond simply condemning the critics and makes several pointed, persuasive arguments about why they should change their ways and get off the sidelines. That's the core of what I'm talking about, being a persuasive advocate over being an arbiter doling out badges that declare others to be either good or evil.
If you truly believe that harm is being done by the inaction of others, then in my opinion it is better to attempt to persuade them to act than it is to simply condemn them for not having acted yet and give up on them.
Obviously there is a point at which it's not worth the energy trying to convince someone who is irrevocably set in their ways. In my experience though, this is rarely the case for people who are apathetic towards (or even unaware of) the problem at hand, which is the situation I think is being discussed here.
I got the impression from the tone of your comment that I've upset or offended you. If so I am sorry, it was not my intention. I've also noticed that you've had to deal with a lot of racist idiots in this thread. You have my sympathy for that and I hope it hasn't caused you too much stress today.
Not really because even if you know about the Problem it isn't your responsibility to fix it or even to try to fix it. You can't fault people for choosing to remain neutral because then everyone who isn't immediately on your side becomes the bad guy. People have freedom of choice.
This is where we hit ethically gray areas that are 100% open to your individual interpretation and your idea of moral and social responsibility which differs person to person.
Also using alienating phrases like "You're either with us or against us" is text book on how not to garner support for a cause.
In a broader sense, I dont know if I agree. I dont particularly believe in the utilitarianistic belief that inaction is just as damning as a bad action, simply because its impossible to ever do the "most right" action. For example, as another poster brought up, using a confrontational arguement that pushes people away from the moral choice is in itself immoral, as now less net positive is accomplished. Additionally, it can be argued that by taking the time to argue this is immoral, as there are countless more moral actions you could be taking at this very second.
At that point, no moral being exists on the planet, and as such, striving to become moral becomes near meaningless.
Instead of condemning all actions that arent the most moral, we should instead condemn only those that are truly immoral.
I agree with you but you are just going to the next step in the argument in my opinion. Most things in life are shades of gray and I think everyone is allowed to make their own decisions about what is and isn't worth it. Obviously someone not stopping a murder isnt as bad as the murderer themselves, but I think you can easily argue than it would be good of them to stop it therefore by not stopping it when it's in their power is a "bad" decision. But I would consider it not worth condemning them even if I thought they made an immoral choice.
Sorry if this isnt super coherent, I keep stopping and coming back to typinv this response.
In my honest opinion, the better way to sort moral and immoral behavior is by prima facie duties and supererogatory actions. For example, becoming a firefighter and risking your life is obviously moral behavior. But it shouldn't be required of everyone, and doing so means that it becomes supererogatory, or going above and beyond what you are compelled to do.
In this light, inaction (to a point) isn't immoral, because the action might be considered going above what you are required to do. Not everyone needs to work in a soup kitchen, but everyone ought to treat the homeless with kindness and respect. Not volunteering isn't immoral, it's just beyond the moral requirements. Obviously volunteering is great and good and is a fantastic action, but one that isn't required to be considered a good person.
I'd argue that someone who lives their day to day life without hurting others is a better person than someone who spends half their time performing supererogatory actions and the other half being a jackass or domestic abuser, for example.
People need to be faced with the reality and consequences (to others) of their views. We pussyfoot around the topic too much and we’ve got a generation of Jordan Peterson INCELS to show for it.
That's fair, I honestly find those types pretty insufferable. I think part of the appeal of this pseudo-intellectual dark web is because they give the veneer of giving it to people straight and not bogged down by political correctness.
I used to buy into a lot of that shit and it took until my ex (with a woman studies degree) sat down and explained to me the other perspective and why it's a very non apt comparison to weigh the stuff I've had to deal with vs people who get flak for things like skin color or sex all the time
I think for me, I heard things like "white privilege" and came back with, "what the hell, I've struggled a lot through my life. I was a homeless druggie at one point, how is that for so called privilege?"
But having someone sit down and explain to me that this is different than struggles based on things about me I'm unable to control. That I wasnt getting passed over for job offers because my named sounded a certain way or people calling the cops cuz they think I'm a thief. I didnt realise it's not that if you are white, your life is easy. It's that there are hella other hurdles people or color have to jump over on top of all that shit.
Maybe I'm optimistic, though I think a lot of people (like my previous self) would be more open to seeing this point, and were quite disillusioned with "dont talk to me, you're fucking white so you dont know" (at least how I perceived it before). Though also I dont think the burden should be pushed on people to explain every minute detail. Theres hella people arguing bad faith on the internet.
I guess I'm trying to say is that those concept made sense and resonated with me when someone sat down and explained them to me like I was an adult, and not some petulant kid whose questions were to be written off. Noone had done that before, I mean it's not on them to scribe everything for me, but it led to me only gaining my knowledge on those topics by pseudo intellectual types who mischaracterize these concepts completely.
I'm kind of ranting, though I think change will be made by making small meaningful conversations in a non judgemental way to convince people and show why this view is the rational or righteous one. That's what I aiming to do with some of my friends, who are trump supporters. At first I thought they were foolish, though now i believe it was their disillusionment with the system (and a lack of understanding about it) that lead them down this road. Maybe that doesn't justify anything or people can still be bitter, though it helped me realize it's not that they're dumb or evil people. They simply were presented with different information and made logical decisions based on the information they had. If they had more information or a more nuanced view, I think they see these things from a different perspective (much like I changed my perspective ).
Ya know, I have the feeling (if anyone made it this far) I'll get responses saying this is an example of my white privilege and that it's my fault for not understanding these concepts. I'm getting ahead of myself, though would argue that theres a helluva a lot of people (especially young white men) who were in my position. It's not realistic that they will change their minds without being exposed to HOW and WHY these concepts make sense. So in the end I dont think it matters how right or wrong that is, its kinda how it is currently. And what I was talking about I think is the way we can get more people on board, see and understand our side, and move forward to progress.
I see where you are coming from. It’s hard to see what others are burdened with when you are trying to get out from under a pile of shit. It can hard to put aside a point of view and really see what others are dealing with.
I sometimes snark that the disaffected white people flocking to Trump’s dog whistle song have never accomplished anything in their lives, but the color of their skin. The reality is that every year the game gets rigged more and more against them. They are losing ground and the bosses are telling them it is the fault of other, even poorer, people. The bosses are looting the system and getting the rest of us to fight like dogs over scraps. When you read an article about how some workers may be getting a benefit, you will have people full of resentment bitching about how good the other workers have it. What people should be saying is, why don’t I have that? My parents, or more likely, my grandparents did. What changed? You see working class people arguing to cut taxes on the wealthiest, while the percentage of wealth controlled by the top 1% has more than doubled in the last 40 years.
This trajectory is incompatible with the American way of life, and unsustainable. Will the workers lie down like dogs and take it? I’m afraid they will.
Is this the argument you think I am saying, that I am ok with racism to protect my feelings? That's not why I was trying to go for tbh. Maybe I should be more clear in the future
What if someones views are wrong or prejudiced in themselves?
Ok, but in this case is it? He's saying either be an ally for equal rights and help fight racism or you are part of the problem. It's pretty cut and dry.
Or at the least can be improved upon
Again, this particular idea can't be improved on. It's morally, ethically and all around the correct thing to do.
I think there are better ways to convince people to help the cause. And I think this mentality harms it.
I'd actually argue that you deciding to take a stand over ultimatums vs simply agreeing with the obviously overall correct sentiment impedes any progress more.
f you disagree, its because maybe we are different and see it from different perspectives (and that's ok!)
In one of your previous replies you already said "I'm with you in spirit." So I know that already are an ally for equal rights. I get that we are on the same side. We actually agree with one another. I just had to hop in because I always hate any "Don't tell me what to do" counter reply because in my opinion, it's not an ultimatum. It is straight up facts. Arguing against "Be an ally or be part of the problem." when the topic is racial equality just seems unnecessary.
I get a little where he's coming from with ultimatums in general. "Yes it's the right thing. Of course I'll do it. But fuck you for telling me to do it or else"
That's the thing, he's not being told to do anything. You either agree or you don't. If you don't, that's literally part of the problem. It's not an ultimatum, it's just the way it is.
This is why (as a white guy in a mostly black college) I'm doing my final english research paper on slavery reparations and racism in America. I really want to be informed, and really want to be an ally to the community I live in
Nah I'm just in community college in Sacramento. Idk if I can be fully accurate saying it's mostly black it's actually pretty diverse. But it's definitely not majority white by any means of the term lol. I chose it based on location and price, I'm in my 30s and work full time/have a family and home so moving for college wasn't really an option and neither was an expensive university.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Martin Luther King jr. expressed disappointment with the 'average whites'. People who considered themselves not racist, were not even against the civil rights movement, but who kept telling him and other civil right leaders to 'wait for the right time'. He talks about how he expects the hardcore racists to put the black population down, but the moderate whites were just as content to keep the status quo, saying black people should wait for a more appropriate time to make their claim for equality.
The real enemy, he said, was not the KKK or anything, it was the vast majority of average white people that chose not to allow blacks the same rights as them simply because they did not like things to change.
Plus, you have to get caught to get arrested and that depends on the presence and discretion cops. And there's the matter of overcriminalization and departments riding CompStat's corpse issuing thousands of nothing citations.
Those statistics is why the difference between correlation and causation are important. Because those statistics are so high for certain races there are people who then use those to paint everyone of that race as the same yet the amount of people who are the biggest percentage just happened to be of a certain race making it a correlation. They aren't committing those crimes because of their race (which would be causation if they did). People tend to mix those 2 up for some reason.
(Although it is a fact that there are a few dirty cops in America who target innocent people and plant fake evidence so they can arrest them and people of a certain race are most certainly disadvantaged (ofcourse not all of them) which would make them more likely to commit crimes which means that we'd have to fix this problem through giving everyone proper and affordable education and such)
They aren't committing those crimes because of their race (which would be causation if they did).
I think you might be missing a really important factor here which makes this issue a lot more complicated.
The statistics we’re talking about can be seen as direct results of racist policy (the institutional racism OP is taking about) enacted specifically, and often openly, to keep blacks and other minorities at a disadvantage.
The crime and cycles of violence in the hood are real. But if we could all put the pitchforks down once in a while we could actually try to get to the bottom of why it’s happening. The idea that black people are just more prone to crime and violence wasn’t cutting it then and it doesn’t cut it now.
few dirty cops in America
I’m not sure I can agree there...institutional racism and harshness toward minorities in American police departments is real, well-documented, and a serious issue.
But I agree; honest, quality education can be a solution to a lot of this. Not white-washes narratives that promote American nationalism.
There are really dirty cops who plant evidence to falsely get innocent people convicted (which has happened to both black people and white people although it happens more with black people) but they are at a huge minority when you look at how many honest cops there are (which is why I said a few).
And I can't say this enough but affordable and good quality education is indeed the key to most of the problems
You also make a lot of good points that I fully agree with but just didn't put in my comment
If you're taking cues from SAS I'm already questioning your judgement, but if your intent doesn't match your execution you can't just cry "you know what I meant" when people point out you were incorrect.
Until I see black people fighting to end their racism towards whites , there is no solidarity.
Why would we want to sympathize with people who hate us for our skin color and blame every single problem they have on us ? We white people do enough to combat racism. It's time the black community do the same.
Fixing racism isnt one races job. That's a racist belief in and of itself. Black parents tell their kids the white man is evil and police will kill them. They grow up believing this and blame us for it?
Black parents tell their kids the white man is evil and police will kill them. They grow up believing this and blame us for it?
This is a gross oversimplification in every sense of the word. I’m not black, but from my experience, black families teach their kids the same thing a lot of white families do: manners, morality, and empathy.
I’m sure they want their children to be wary of dangers and injustices that no white family ever even has to worry about, but that’s a far cry from indiscriminate hate. Maybe if more white children were taught to be more aware of those same injustices we wouldn’t have such a big problem on our hands.
You’re right. It’s not one race’s job, or one person’s, or one government body’s. It’s all of our jobs. And we do it by learning to think more broadly and be more empathetic, and most importantly be more in-tune to who we may be marginalizing. Even if we don’t realize it.
EDIT: After rereading your comment, I think you may have some real issues with black people. You seem to have a really monolithic view of that community and you may want to think about that.
You are trying to blame capitalism when those who critique capitalism when it comes to institutional systemic bias also place a blame on those who become complicit with it.
Our modern perception of racism was designed by imeprialists and corporations during the slave trade, and we became complicit to it.
Eh, thats pretty contentious imo. Id have to go dig through my shelf to find specific examples, but a lot of Capital is pretty agnostic about individuals, and frames accumulation as a natural result of the system existing at all. Bakunin took it further and basically didnt blame anyone for being fortunate via the system.
Personally, its hard to say i wouldnt also pay off politicians if i was a billionaire, considering itd obviously be to my advantage.
This person speaks the truth. Putting poor whites and poor blacks against each other is the oldest trick in the book. Now add poor latinos into the mix is the new move.
This is why affirmative action comes up in the news all the time. Make working class whites and working class blacks feel the competition for the few seats at the table for their children's education. Rich people don't worry about affirmative action. White, black, or whatever - they are just buying/legacy their way into elite universities for their kids.
This is the exact shit that is the dynamic when women are pitted against other women. When we are taught that it’s me or her, we’re fighting amongst each other and not competing with men who keep us out of jobs and industry. There are a lot of older professional women who still have this mentality and “test” younger women, are WAY harder on them then young men with the same experience because they had it harder too. No thanks, Id rather spend my time lifting up other women.
"A rich person, a worker and an immigrant sit at a table, in front of them a plate with 20 cookies on it. The rich person takes 19 of the cookies and says to the worker 'Be careful, the immigrant wants to steal your cookie.'"
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
That's why I posted multiple studies all demonstrating similar results, you dork.
One of the great follies of the age of information is that people think that just because they technically have the ability to look information up, that they also have the foundational knowledge base required to correctly parse and interpret that information. These are the sorts of people who, when you post a study showing them that their point is wrong, go in and read the abstract, and try and find flaws with the methodology of the study so they can justify their cognitive dissonance in ignoring it. Or worse, they accuse others of appealing to authority when they try and cite sources, but never acknowledge their own appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not because he or she does not know enough about the subject, or has not been given enough evidence to know otherwise.
I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I. If they think the peer reviewed study I posted is bunk, they can find another peer reviewed study that challenges the results, preferably one that references and points out the methodological flaws in my study. I cannot explain to you how uninterested I am in anyone’s armchair researcher opinion on the results of a peer reviewed study. That's why we have experts, that's why we have peer review, that’s why we have the scientific method.
They are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that they think their "review" is relevant to the conversation. Why? Because real understanding takes a lot of learning about things not directly related to the topic at hand. It's not enough to look just at that part that's controversial; you've got to understand all the relevant background material to really grok what you're looking at. That's a lot of basics, and sometimes a lot of history, and if you don't have that understanding, you don't understand anything. Without having the proper context, you don't have the understanding to fully understand what you're looking at, and if you assume scientists are all full of crap or part of a conspiracy, you can be very easy to mislead. Unfortunately, that's how you get people who have no idea what they're talking about but still think they've 'done the research.'
Because here is the thing. The studies I’m posting? They might be wrong.
But the way to prove that is to post other studies that fail to reproduce the results or challenge the methodology. Not to tell me why they think it’s a bad study, nothing could be more useless than that.
If the actual experts are constantly modifying and refining their hypotheses based on the realities of the scientific model, what on earth makes the amateurs think their backyard interpretations of the data hold even the smallest measure of truth?
I was asking for links to the study itself which I still don’t see. I don’t care to read that whole diatribe, but judging from the language and length, you should probably put away the thesaurus and learn how to communicate concisely.
Here's the part about methods. Can you please tell me if anything here indicates the study is faulty?
Methodology
This report is based primarily on a large national survey and a series of four focus groups conducted Dec. 12-13, 2016 in Cincinnati, Ohio.23 The focus group participants included white, non-Hispanic adults between the ages of 25 and 55, who did not have a four-year college degree. Groups were gender segregated and all participants identified as politically independent. The focus groups were conducted at L&E Research.
The survey was designed and conducted by PRRI in partnership with The Atlantic. The survey was made possible by generous grants from Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation. Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews conducted between September 22, 2016 and October 9, 2016 by professional interviewers under the direction of SSRS. Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 3,043 adults 18 years of age or older living in the United States (1,823 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). The selection of respondents within households was accomplished by randomly requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female currently living in the household.
Data collection is based on stratified, single-stage, random-digit-dialing (RDD) sample of landline telephone households and randomly generated cell phone numbers. The sample is designed to represent the total U.S. adult population and includes respondents from all 50 states, including Hawaii and Alaska. The landline and cell phone samples are provided by Marketing Systems Group.
The weighting is accomplished in two separate stages. The first stage of weighting corrects for different probabilities of selection associated with the number of adults in each household and each respondent’s telephone usage patterns.24 In the second stage, sample demographics are balanced to match target population parameters for gender, age, education, race and Hispanic ethnicity, region (U.S. Census definitions), population density and telephone usage. The population density parameter was derived from Census 2010 data. The telephone usage parameter came from an analysis of the July-December 2015 National Health Interview Survey. All other weighting parameters are derived from an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s May 2016 Current Population Survey.
The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results. The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target populations.
The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.1 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. The survey included a subsample of 1,956 likely voters. The margin of error for the subsample of likely voters is +/- 2.6 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. The design effect for the survey is 1.3. In addition to sampling error, surveys may also be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context and order effects.
Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to dig through all the cited research, either, but they're using metrics to determine how the respondents answered that aren't presented directly.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the NORC study.
In other words they fear being discriminated against.
On which. The existence of white privilege, or more sources explaining that racial motivations and fear of losing status were the primary motivations of Trump voters?
You can't use that line when I'm posting peer reviewed studies. I mean, you can, you just did, but it makes you look like an idiot.
Here are a few of the literally hundreds of examples of economic and political oppression that black people continue to face to this day, that white people benefit from.
Summary: Implicit bias leads to white people being hired over black people even when their resumes are identical. Just having a black sounding name reduces your callback chances by 50%.
Dumbing it down: Being white makes it easier to get a job, regardless of qualifications.
Summary: Black people are sentenced longer for the same crimes as white people, accounting for nearly identical criminal backgrounds. GOP appointed judges are the worst for this, but all judges do it on average.
Dumbing it down: Born white? Do less time for the same crimes.
Summary: Federally mandated discriminatory lending practices are directly responsible for the creation of poor urban black communities, the historic lack of black home ownership (with generational wealth being the most important form of transferable wealth), and easier home purchasing for white people. Some of these practices still continue to this day, despite being outlawed.
Dumbing it down: White parents owned a house? Federally mandated racism got them that loan, and you are absolutely benefiting from it.
It amazes me that anyone could be so arrogant as to read the abstract, and think that they can understand a methodological flaw in the research.
Not even close. Someone asked for a source to the claim I already quoted, your source was garbage to the claim. 1,200 people are not a majority and that’s no where near a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.
What, you think you know more than all these experts?
Is that what I claimed? Is that even close to anything I’ve said? I know your source did not back up the claim made. Which is what I replied to. I’m not paying $30 to read your other source, sorry.
All you're demonstrating is that you don't understand how statistics work. One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
The majority of trump voters were white and studies showed they voted for him out of fear of losing race status
That is the claim, and I've posted more than a half dozen sources verifying it.
If you can find a study that contests the claim, by all means post it, but until you do the burden of proof has been more than adequately met. Because here is the thing. The studies I’m posting? They might be wrong. But the way to prove that is to post other studies that fail to reproduce the results or challenge the methodology. Not to tell me why they think it’s a bad study, nothing could be more useless than that. If the actual experts are constantly modifying and refining their hypotheses based on the realities of the scientific model, what on earth makes the amateurs think their backyard interpretations of the data hold even the smallest measure of truth?
One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
Where are the multiple? You posted one weak article and whatever was behind a $30 paywall.
Again, you cannot take 1,200 people, look at the results, and then say “the majority of 62,000,000..”
That’s absolute garbage. I never claimed your source was incorrect. I said it did not at all back up the original claim that was made by someone else. And it doesn’t. Sorry, you cannot tell how 62,000,000 people feel by asking 1,200. I’m not sure I made any claim, there is no burden of proof I need. I mean trying to find a study that shows 1,200 is not a fair representation of 62,000,000 might be hard, being so specific and all. I’m not playing along with your prove me wrong grandstanding.
I’ll try to explain again:
Someone made a claim.
Someone asked for the source.
You replied with a source that does not at all back up the original claim by another person.
Don't worry. If you don't agree with these results. Just say "the sample size was too small" or "this study was biased" and suddenly any scientific evidence against your point is worthless! Its so convenient that since some scientific studies are worse than others, we can just say any study against my viewpoints are the bad ones! Forget nuance lol.
Interesting studies. But point shouldnt be if its good or bad. Point should be that white americans ARE losing their privileged status and rightfully fear it and act on it. Its basic human response to act on danger. Problem is that their lose isnt that big in compare to the gain of blacks, latinos etc. but that is something noone care to explain to them. Coz everyone who fear this, is just another racist not worth discussing. (this is generalization as fuck, but the rise of racism in last 10 years is proving my point to some extent.) I am so happy to live in normal society where race isnt factor when dealing with state institutions. USA have long way to go...
Calm your vagina, I was just asking for sources, not your passive aggressive whining. Surprise surprise, I don’t disagree that Trump supporters might be partly motivated by racism and ignorance. Now piss off
I was actually taking a jab at the guy who replied to the other comment providing sources. But I'm glad to see you didn't get upset and defensive about it. Sensitive topic? Don't worry, its justs a simple confusion lol.
Look if you're having a bad day why not take a break from the internet huh? The information is here for you to read. You asked for it. Read it or get some air bud.
These are opinion pieces written by social "scientists" who have come to a conclusion based on... whatever they believe.
They group an entire group of voters together and then slap a gigantic label on them and proclaim "SEE, I TOLD YOU THEY WERE ALL RACIST!!"
I mean, be reasonable, does that even really sound plausible, let alone possible? Think about the white people you know that voted Trump (if you know any) - are they racist? Was their vote racially motivated?
I went through every one of those studies and read the ones that were available, and their sources. The sources, btw, are just more social scientists coming to their own conclusions from selected data. For example, in one study there is a "temperature" rating for feelings voters have about other races, and left out of the analysis is that Clinton and Obama voters follow the same trend that Trump voters do, except in different amounts. For example, liberal voters feelings towards Muslims and undocumented immigrants dropped significantly, but no conclusions were drawn from that about racism or anti-immigration. He then takes these selected numbers and lumps them together and calls them "racial resentment". And as I said before, they are taking a minority and applying their made up label to the majority. Also, the author Sean McElwee - and this is from google btw - is an "American LEFT WING ACTIVIST and data scientist." This is the guy who other authors are basing their own research on. Do you see the conflict of interest? Do you see the circle jerk?
Look, if you're wielding a hammer the world is suddenly going to be filled with nails. I have no doubt that there is existential anxiety among (some) white folks regarding their place in society, and most probably don't even realize it. But to come out and label 50% of white America as voting Trump because they're racist, WHICH IS WHAT ALL THIS BULLSHIT IS BASICALLY TRYING TO SAY, is more "us vs them" political rhetoric.
I refuse to believe in the America that the media and far left and right are trying to sell us. 95% of us are good people with good hearts and good intentions. Yeah, we might get sideways and fucked up sometimes, just like brothers and sisters in a family do sometimes, but this xenophobic bullshit - this "either you're with us or you're against us" bullshit - has got to stop.
Stop being manipulated. Do the actual research. Learn who the sources are. Question everything, even if it provides you with confirmation (bias.)
Maybe you were an honest broker, but people respond to JAQing off this way for a reason. It’s patently obvious what type of people Trump has been campaigning to.
You should be downvoted. One for for the whiney edit. Secondly, If you’re actually interested go do the research. If you can’t find anything ask after that.
You don’t know if the person has the time to look up sources, gets busy right after commenting or whatever.
The PRRI study is interesting, and it lines up with my thoughts. However, I think they were mostly duped. Trump ran on a platform for helping the poor working class and bringing back good ol American values. It just proves what I was saying, the rich and powerful pit all of us against each other.
I think part of the issue though is that institutionalizing racism allows for its effects to continue on regardless of the actors. So while agree with you for the most part, I think there is still a role that the average white person plays in furthering racism even if they themselves aren’t racist. All it takes is for good people to do nothing.
The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
No-one's actually doing this, though. What people are doing, is recognizing how white people all benefit from institutional racism - whether they are active participants in it or not - which is a very different thing to blaming all of them.
QUALIFYING EDIT: maybe like 12 people are doing this, but they're likely just terminally online and you don't have to listen to them.
People do this all the time. You see it on Reddit most of all. There’s always some derogatory thing about straight white men, so don’t try to gaslight.
And secondly white men don’t benefit from institutional racism, corporations and rich people do. Jack dickhead working at Walmart gains nothing.
Yeah, it's usually a joke. When was the last time you saw someone say, with sincerity, that racism is literally the fault of every white person?
If you truly believe that, you should look up incarceration rates by ethnicity. See how much longer black people get for the same crimes as white people. Just because working-class whites don't get any financial privilege out of it, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them in other ways.
It's easy to say that but I find this is a viewpoint used mainly to absolve the bourgeois of their agency in creating the current issues in America. If we cared about climate change and racism people wouldn't vote for climate change deniers and racists no matter how much money corporations throw to politicians. That's just a fact. Politicians can only do what voters allow them to.
No it's not a fact. The corporations and politicians work together, paying each other off, looking the other way, ultimately with the intent for a singular goal of dividing people. They want us to blame each other, pointing fingers at people who ultimately just want to live a regular life. What this does is take our attention from the real perpetrators.
They want us to blame each other, pointing fingers at people who ultimately just want to live a regular life.
This is just so... Ugh... Why is it that everything in American politics is based in the root thought that "real Americans" (aka white people) are innocent. No matter what policies they support, no matter who they vote for, no matter how other groups that don't have the same obvious motivations as them (aka the motivation to uphold white supremacy) vote. Blame corporations that don't have any direct power, but let's not blame the voters putting these people in office.
You’re absolutely out of touch if you don’t think corporations have any real power lmao. The rich run the world. Shit, Epstein was running an international pedo ring, and was murdered.
They have the power we give them as a society and no more or less. Corporations couldn't buy politicians if every time politicians passed something to help them out voters voted in other politicians that didn't. You can believe some evil cabal is doing all the damage if you want. It's easier to do that than to realize most everyone you know is complacent in the destruction of american society and will continue to do so because they really don't care at the end of the day.
Epstein is actually a good example. Our president is heavily tied to him. Our Attorney General's father gave him a job at a highschool. People voted Trump into office which is why they even had the power to kill Epstein easily. Without the support of the people they couldn't have killed him like they did.
the real criminals are those that abide by this status quo. You can say that "well I'm not racist because I'm against these things" but if you still vote these trashbags into office, you're part of the problem. I'd go a step further (and this is where I'll lose some of you, but just so you know why left-voting people are so gung ho sometimes). Voting moderates into office is also part of the problem. We need radical change, we don't have time for party shenanigans or ideas of "oh i dont want to upset conservatives by placing someone TOO liberal in office" fuck off, yes you do. Conservatives have, by and large, abided (abode?) by this system. People are dying in the streets, literally shot to death by the people sworn to protect us. They're being thrown in jail for YEARS for possession of a drug that we are decriminalizing. They're the backbone of our economy but they cant even survive if they break their foot. This type of thing bleeds into "white life" all the time, so even if you're a fucking nazi you have a vested interest in saving yourself. I digress.
we can argue semantics about who is and who is not racist by some definition, but lets be practical about it: who fucking cares, the people in power are killing minorities and/or ruining their lives and they'd do the same to you if you (a middle class or poor person) were easily identifiable by some physical feature.
No you’re being delusional. You have to appeal to moderates too. Most voters are moderate. I don’t lose my shit like some of you because of Trump. Sometimes you end up with duds. 20 years from now, we’ll have another Trump. I mean fuck 20 years ago we had Bush. While it’s always possible to end up with a Hitler, I really don’t believe Americans, at least right now would elect someone like that. Based on our trajectory, I also don’t see it happening any time soon. If Trump isn’t out next year, he’ll be out four years from now. In any case, pushing away moderates won’t help us at all.
Lmao what? How about you get your shit together. Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate, basically a corporatist, hardly liberal if you look at her policies, and somehow everyone was cool with voting for her. Now we’re in the same spot as last time. Bernie Sanders is a fucking show in and somehow we get people here talking voting for Warren or Biden.
Corporations don't burn the Amazon. Local landowners who focus their income in agriculture (mainly soy production nowadays) burn the Amazon. They're interested in their own profit and never needed any corporation to tell them to increase production by destroying a part of the rainforest.
It also should be noted that much of this narrative about burning the Amazon comes decades late, ignores how strict local laws are and how hard it is to even police the area, as, in Brazil alone, the northern region is the most extensive of the country and has the smallest population density.
If you want to talk about a capitalist trick, ask the poor locals in less populated areas of the Amazon about large amounts of minerals being illegally extracted by foreign corporations. Indigenous people often sell the local resources despite those existing under reserves, just as they charge people to simply go through certain roads surrounded by the forest, despite being outside their territory.
The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
Blaming the "average white person" isn't a solution. Informing them of stuff like redlining (and how that still has an effect today - even though it no longer happens) is part of a solution.
258
u/[deleted] Dec 11 '19
I mean yeah, but the real criminals are those in power who have the authority to send crack into black communities and disproportionately send black folks to jail. The problem is people just blaming the average white person for these things when they most likely had nothing to do with it.
It’s a classic capitalist trick. Cause strife and conflict among the working class so we don’t rise up against them.
It’s the same thing with climate change — blame the average middle class guy slaving away 12 hours a day who needs to commute two hours to work rather than the corporations burning up the amazon and polluting the oceans.